Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you even educated? Win is the Native Hawaiian Kingdom. Lose is the Industrial Military Complex. I hope you understand the Korporate United States Of Amerika cannot afford to pay its bills. especially big bill called military spending.
.....
Win win I agree HKG will be the bigger winner..
1) So assuming you secede who gets to stay? Current Hawaiian citizens or are you going for some sort of racial purity purge?
2) Will everyone have equal rights and voting capabilities?
Considering the inevitable fate of all great "empires," itʻs only a matter of time before the "American empire" crumbles. Of course, it might take another 239 years or so for it to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse
1) So assuming you secede who gets to stay? Current Hawaiian citizens or are you going for some sort of racial purity purge?
2) Will everyone have equal rights and voting capabilities?
Considering that the Native Hawaiian community hasn't been able to "get its act together" for over a century and that there are many dissenting views as to what form Hawaiian sovereignty should take, any possible secession is unlikely to occur any time soon. Here's a link to a list of some of the Hawaiian sovereignty groups from the 1880s to the present... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ovement_groups
Considering that the Native Hawaiian community hasn't been able to "get its act together" for over a century and that there are many dissenting views as to what form Hawaiian sovereignty should take, any possible secession is unlikely to occur any time soon. Here's a link to a list of some of the Hawaiian sovereignty groups from the 1880s to the present... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ovement_groups
It doesent matter whether native Hawaiians "get their act together" or not. You see, once upon a time a bunch of people living in Southern states thought they could break away from the Union. We had a war over the issue. These Southern rebels ended up losing and the US Supreme Court then ruled that secession is ILLEGAL.
Considering that the Native Hawaiian community hasn't been able to "get its act together" for over a century and that there are many dissenting views as to what form Hawaiian sovereignty should take, any possible secession is unlikely to occur any time soon. Here's a link to a list of some of the Hawaiian sovereignty groups from the 1880s to the present... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ovement_groups
I'm well aware.
I want to hear what that poster would do with regards to all of the Asians and Haole's born there that aren't "native". Do they get voting rights? Do they get removed from the country or some sort of secondary citizenship or visa?
It doesent matter whether native Hawaiians "get their act together" or not. You see, once upon a time a bunch of people living in Southern states thought they could break away from the Union. We had a war over the issue. These Southern rebels ended up losing and the US Supreme Court then ruled that secession is ILLEGAL.
"Hawaiian sovereignty" does not necessarily mean that the State of Hawaiʻi will secede from the United States. Native Hawaiians already have legal rights to the 1.8 million acre "Ceded Lands Trust" and the 200,000 acre "Hawaiian Home Lands Trust," which serve as an initial land base for any form of Hawaiian sovereignty. Unfortunately, some factions of the Native Hawaiian community are fixated on complete independence, some want a restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy, and others want a "nation within a nation" status (similar to some American Indian tribes). Thus, it matters quite a bit whether Native Hawaiians "get their act together" because a "canoe cannot move forward if everyone's paddling in a different direction."
Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase settled that question all the way back in 1869:
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
So sorry, angry states: this is probably a dead end.
=========================================
Secession is Unlawful
First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861
I hold that, in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the union of these States is perpetual....It follows....that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I, therefore, consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken.
First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861
We find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
Message to Congress in Special Session July 4, 1861
One hypothesis is that the first Polynesians arrived in Hawaiʻi in the 3rd century from the Marquesas and were followed by Tahitians in AD 1300, who conquered the original inhabitants. Another is that a single, extended period of settlement populated the islands.[SIZE=2][7][/SIZE] Evidence for a Tahitian conquest of the islands include the legends of Hawaiʻiloa and the navigator-priest Paʻao, who is said to have made a voyage between Hawaiʻi and the island of "Kahiki" (Tahiti) and introduced many customs. Early historians, Fornander and Beckwith, subscribed to this Tahitian invasion theory, but later historians, such as Kirch, do not mention it.[SIZE=2][citation needed] [/SIZE]King Kalakaua claims that Paʻao was from the South Pacific. Some writers[SIZE=2][which?] claim that other settlers in Hawaiʻi were forced back into remote valleys by newer arrivals. They claim that stories about the [/SIZE]Menehune, little people who built heiau and fishponds, prove the existence of ancient peoples who settled the islands before the Hawaiian
So evidence points to arrival of the current Hawaiians are most likely Tahitians who arrived in 1300...so 1300 is more significant than the 1700's or 1959 in what way? The difference is a blip on the radar.
Of course, Wikipedia is anti-Hawaiian propaganda dreamed up by the white man to make Hawaiians claims of thousands of years on the islands seem exaggerated.
Quote:
I found their claim to it as "their" land to be suspect just as much as it belongs to the United States. What difference is 50 years or 500 years? The current natives have not been on that land for 1,000's of years either.
the difference is, clear. 50-500=450 you don't have a calculator? As well as. the US broke laws treaties that they impose on everyone but them selves. FYI there is not treaty of annexation go skoo yourself
here from wiki... since you wanted to go there...
Quote:
The legal status of Hawaii—as opposed to its political status—is a subject of scholarly and legal debate. While Hawaii is broadly accepted as a state of the United States of America in mainstream understanding, there is critique regarding the international legality of this status. The viewpoint that Hawaii is an independent nation under U.S. occupation is circulated in academic circles, school curriculum;[1] the U.N. and other international forums;[2] and in daily dialogue in Hawaii. The legality of control of Hawaii by the United States has also been brought up in cases in the U.S. Supreme Court,[3] in U.S. District Court,[4] and in international legal actions.[3] Outside of Hawaii, this legal debate is relatively unknown.
Quote:
In 1896, expansionist president William McKinley was elected. In 1897, McKinley negotiated a treaty with the Republic of Hawaii, which he attempted unsuccessfully to pass through Congress; however, only 46 of the 60 requisite votes were procured, and so the treaty failed.
Senator Pettigrew and Senator Turpie insisted that the Kanaka Maoli of Hawaii be given a chance to vote on annexation. But Senator Morgan and the other pro-annexation Senators knew that if a vote were taken, it would be overwhelmingly in favor of Hawaii's independence. In a report, these Senators wrote, "If a requirement should be made by the United States of a plebiscite [vote] to determine the question of annexation, it would work a revolution in Hawaii which would abolish its constitution." They knew, in other words, that if the people were allowed to vote, not only would they reject annexation, they would also reject the Republic that had been forced upon them against their will.[26]
The majority of the population in Hawaii was indeed vociferously opposed to U.S. annexation. In a single weeklong petition drive, 21,000 signatures—representing well over half of the adult population of Hawaii at the time—were procured by horseback, boat and foot travel. These petitions were hand-carried to Washington and delivered to The United States Senate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
